Selling Public Land Back To the States?! Oh No; Not the 10th Amendment—And Not Jobs And Volunteer Opportunities!

Receiving a letter from the Trust For Public Lands, an apparent Constitutional Conservative in my family angrily expressed how she agrees with the Trust For Public Lands about the fact that—as she learned—Congress voted to allow the federal government to alleviate some of the national debt sell some public lands back to the states. She, in other words, agrees with the TFPL that the public lands should stay with the federal government and not be used for mining, forestry work, or other environment-affecting work.

As I told her, that she's upset mad that a Republican Congress did the following baffles me:

1. Return natural resources to the U.S.—after all, we've had to import because of not being allowed to mine, use lumber, frack, etc.. By the way, she complains when houses are left abandoned all while she excoriates Congress for leaving public land unabandoned—what irony!
2. Create and recreate jobs in the U.S.—people such as aspiring and out-of-work miners, carpenters, environmental consultants, and professional foresters will be able to have jobs and careers!
3. Create and recreate volunteer opportunities for, for example, retirees, stay-at-home parents, students and interns, and those whom are unable to work but can volunteer—for example, a widowed retiree who's living with her homeschooling daughter can go on tree-replanting volunteer trips with her daughter and granddaughter when the granddaughter has to go on school trips. After all, the widowed retiree doesn't want to just languish inside the house all day—she wants to help her granddaughter become a Sierra Club or Conservation International intern-to-be-employee.

In conclusion, I find myself baffled that an apparent Constitutional conservative disparages Congress for giving public land back to the states and creating opportunities for the aspiring and current American workforce and volunteerforce. 

אה, לא!

Ah, lo.

"“Nothing will separate us, against our will, from such men and women, whether they live in Israel or in any other country. Universities were born before the nation states; they have reasons that overcome any raison d’état.”"

The comments were good until then. Firstly, nation states were the norm back in ancient days (e.g., Yisra'el/Judaea/"Palestinia"; Roma, Hellas). Secondly, without batim-midrash and similar educational institutions, universities would've been nothing. By the way, that "Israel is part of [Italians'] identity," is drek. With the exception of the Roman, Tuscan, and other Italian remnants, Italy and Israel have nothing to do with each other but the pain that Italians caused Jews over the millennia.

What the Italians have right, though, is this: "going against Israel means going against ourselves". The Italians know that any nation who curses Israel will be cursed in turn, and the Romans down to the modern-day Italians would've gotten nowhere without (among other Jewish groups) sabras, Romani'otim, Sephardim, Italqim (obviously, since Italqim are Italian Jews), and Ashkenazim (including, I'm pretty sure, Pope Yochanahn Sha'ul ben Malka Chanah. Don't believe me? Go search on "Emilia". Also, Kaczorowska could easily be "bat ka'tz u'rov". By the way, Pope John Paul II really helped improve Christian and Jewish, including Jewish Christian and Non-Messianic Jewish, relations.).

The Italian Anti-BDS legislation, then, may be opportunistic and not out of a genuine love for Israel.